Megan and Harry again!

this thread needs to die now it's no longer about the title subjects!

Sarah48 I repeated what was said at the inquest,

Ok, I’m off, I remember now that you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the Rotal Family’s goings on, including what they were all doing on particular days, and why, including how the felt at the time.

Yes we know. That's what i said.

Sarah48 I did not say Diana died because she was mentally ill, she died because she and Dodi were playing chase with the
paps, left the Ritz ,where there was a private apartment for them and disregarding advice from bodyguards , to go to Dodi’s apartment, they were followed by the pap who were waiting outside and were driven by a driver who had been drinking.

Really Luca you know Charles was in love with someone else , or you believe the many,many programmes which claim he was ?

Same as ‘Camilla got tired of waiting for him so married someone else’

Whether or not Diana had mental health issues that doesn’t alter the fact that Charles married her when he was in love with someone else and she was clearly besotted with him.

But even if - if - someone considered Diana to have mental health problems, not quite sure what that has to do with her death?

Sarah48 yes I read the reports. This isn’t a thread about Diana so not fair I should post facts which were disclosed at the inquest.

Diana was mentally ill. ??? Did you yourself read the inquest report, Anniebach? And who decided to give her that label? In many aspects of her life, she seems to have coped extremely well for someone who - you say - was ‘mentally ill’. Whatever that means, as Charles might say..... Coping with an adulterous husband, two young children, within the confines of a very unusual family setup.

Galaxy the inquest into Diana’s death covered many things,
it wasn’t just a case of a drunken driver, there were all the allegations by Al Fayed, it all had to be heard

Sorry I dont know what you mean about Diana being mentally ill? She was killed because a drunk driver crashed, I dont understand what you mean.

Referring back to Prince Philip I believe he did a great deal to reform the Palace machinery, rather as Prince Albert did, cutting through the over -staffing, waste and unnecessary protocol (three footmen to produce a cup of tea) and dragged it into the twentieth century.
Prince Charles was not happy in his marriage but it was his own indecision that caused Camilla to get tired of waiting and marry someone else. He alone seems to have achieved what he wanted, been given a second chance.
As for Andrew, I don't know.

Diana was mentally ill, did you not follow the inquest into her death ?

As for Megan, left her husband, moved in with a celebrity chef,
left him when she met Harry.

Well I dont think it's a bad aim in life to be fair. The systems that put Charles and Diana (if the stories are true) in that position arent that great in my view. So if that institution is disrupted well the word won't end. As I say I doubt Meghan has the power to disrupt, outsiders dont seem to. Although I suppose you could say Diana did influence some change.

So everyone in a life of service must live the happiest of lives .

IF we are to believe !

Because I dont know that it looks the happiest of lives, if we are to believe the stories he had to marry a young girl when he loved someone else etc etc. Perhaps those ideas need some disruption. It's the concept Meghan is disrupting some sacred institution ( I personally dont think this is the case and if it is she will likely come off worse) so to me the institution isnt sacred or particularly admirable but I guess that is where we differ.

Galaxy why did you name Charles with Andrew ?

Sorry anniebach I lost your e.

I didnt vote for either of them though Annibach

I dont frown on divorce. Meghan has moved to America. I dont frown on that either.

Charles had an affair, his wife had several affairs, they divorced, good grief is divorce to be frowned upon if it happens to be someone in a life of service.

At the last election we had two party leaders, both married several times.

So are we saying that they no longer have to be squeaky clean in their dealings because it won't reflect badly on the RF?

Just interested because only 3 days ago the EU commission decided to add Dominica to the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. At exactly the same time M & H made their first Archewell donation to Dominica. Very little has been reported about this, but if the RF had done so I'm sure everyone would be up in arms.
In that sense it does give M & H the freedom to choose, but yes at their own peril. The big machine won't be there to help dig them out.

Well, as they aren't working members of the RF anymore whatever they do wont reflect back on the 'firm', just on them. I hope they have the forbearance to withstand it.

Whereas the dirty dealings and unpleasant shenanigans of the others are at least absorbed by the "system of stability" which are your words, not mine. In the case of Charles and PP anyway - Andrew needs to be held to public account without doubt.

But the fallout of a life of service isnt that great either is it. Andrew, Margaret, Charles, none of it is a great advert for a life of service. If being the change you want is less of Prince Philip using the range of hideous phrases he has used and less of prince Andrew's behaviour i dont think that would be a bad thing. You talk as if Meghan had disrupted some great system of stability, other than the Queen and Anne that's not really what it's been.